It's hypocracy at it's finest, but Stevens is right. Though this ruling was a good ruling and one that I agree with, this ruling will help mature the developing tradition of rightist judicial activism. This would not be the only time in American history where rightist judges dictated our national policy.

You would basically have to say that there was a 300 year tradition of "rightest judges," and rightest constitutional assemblies, and legislatures.

Stevens, in trying to equate 18th Century regulations, especially the Philadelphia Ordinance, drew a false analogy. It dealt with the use of a firearm verses the possession of a firearm.

It's a bit like saying that since you can be prohibited from driving a motorcycle through the Senate Chamber, you don't have a right to own a motorcycle.

I thought Stevens did a very poor job on trying to use the history of gun laws to justify his position.

Although, I am also talking about the XIVA Right to Contract, which was a major part of activism in the 20th century.

Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations.

I agree that only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but the point is not nearly as obvious as you claim. The Constitution merely states that the writ may be suspended during certain emergencies; it does not say who shall suspend it.

Quote

It never says anywhere that it doesn't apply to foreigners.

So? The question presented in Boumediene was whether the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens who are being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations.

I agree that only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but the point is not nearly as obvious as you claim. The Constitution merely states that the writ may be suspended during certain emergencies; it does not say who shall suspend it.

Quote

It never says anywhere that it doesn't apply to foreigners.

So? The question presented in Boumediene was whether the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens who are being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

Anyone with good eyes/reading glasses and a good sense of logic can see that the President cannot suspend habeas corpus on anyone, since that power is only given to Congress during emergency situations.

I agree that only Congress may suspend the writ of habeas corpus, but the point is not nearly as obvious as you claim. The Constitution merely states that the writ may be suspended during certain emergencies; it does not say who shall suspend it.

Yes, but they said that the writ may be suspended during emergencies, such as when the courts are not working, in the part of the Constitution referring to Congress's powers, Article I. If the founders had intended that power to be delegated to another branch, they would have put it in Article II or Article III.

Quote

Quote

It never says anywhere that it doesn't apply to foreigners.

So? The question presented in Boumediene was whether the writ of habeas corpus applies to aliens who are being held outside the sovereign territory of the United States.

And where does the Constitution grant the executive branch the power to hold military tribunals on foreign soil so as to avoid being subject to U.S. law?

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.

The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.

The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory being held in foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Basic logic would show the ridiculousness of this. Don't try to play this both ways.

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.

The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory being held in foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Basic logic would show the ridiculousness of this. Don't try to play this both ways.

Then please use "basic logic" to demonstrate this supposed absurdity of my claim, instead of simply asserting your conclusion.

I am not saying that Justice Scalia and the other dissenters got it right in Boumediene. I'm merely saying that there is adequate justification for their position.

Where in the Constitution says that the write is inapplicable is the prisoner is delibritely held in foreign soil.

The Constitution doesn't even define what a writ of habeas corpus is, let alone indicate the range of its applicability. Thus, it is necessary for one to resort to the common law. The precedents show that writs have been granted for the benefit of citizens or subjects held on foreign territory being held in foreign territory, or for the benefit of aliens held on domestic territory, but never for the benefit of aliens held in foreign territory. In fact, in over five hundred years of English and American legal history, there does not appear to be a single instance of a writ of habeas corpus issuing for the benefit of an alien held in foreign territory.

Basic logic would show the ridiculousness of this. Don't try to play this both ways.

Then please use "basic logic" to demonstrate this supposed absurdity of my claim, instead of simply asserting your conclusion.

I am not saying that Justice Scalia and the other dissenters got it right in Boumediene. I'm merely saying that there is adequate justification for their position.

You say that foreigners on our soil have a right of habeas corpus, and you also say that citizens on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus. Therefore both foreigners and people on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus, meaning that it could not be denied to foreigners on foreign soil.

You say that foreigners on our soil have a right of habeas corpus, and you also say that citizens on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus. Therefore both foreigners and people on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus, meaning that it could not be denied to foreigners on foreign soil.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't work in such a straightforward manner. There is a consistent line of precedent that states that, even though foreigners on domestic soil and citizens on foreign soil may request habeas corpus, foreigners on foreign soil cannot. This might seem contradictory, and it might seem illogical. Indeed, if one were approaching the whole issue afresh, without considering any prior court decisions on the subject, then this is hardly the conclusion one would reach. However, previous courts have confronted the issue, and for five centuries their answer has been consistently the same. The doctrine of stare decisis compels, at the very least, respect for their decisions, if not complete adherence.

I thought Emsworth would call you out on your logical error. But he didn't, so I will.

There's a difference between saying X does not, by itself and without more, mean Y, and saying that X is irrelevant to the determination of Y.

Define "girl" as a non-adult female. If someone is a non-adult, that is relevant to the determination of whether the person is a girl. If someone is female, that is relevant to the determination of whether the person is a girl. Neither, by itself, is adequate.

As long as we have the left in the US(consisted of 'progressives'/marxists/eco-puritans/greens) we need unrestricted gun ownership to be able to have some means of defending ourselves from them.

Logged

"348. The rest of the party appreciates it if I don't start the game in Cyberpsychosis.""I will kill 120,000 people" ~ Barack ObamaThe United States is not only the world's first suburban nation, but it will also be its last. The world cannot sustain any more economies like ours. - Kenneth T. Jackson

You say that foreigners on our soil have a right of habeas corpus, and you also say that citizens on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus. Therefore both foreigners and people on foreign soil have a right of habeas corpus, meaning that it could not be denied to foreigners on foreign soil.

Unfortunately, the law doesn't work in such a straightforward manner. There is a consistent line of precedent that states that, even though foreigners on domestic soil and citizens on foreign soil may request habeas corpus, foreigners on foreign soil cannot. This might seem contradictory, and it might seem illogical. Indeed, if one were approaching the whole issue afresh, without considering any prior court decisions on the subject, then this is hardly the conclusion one would reach. However, previous courts have confronted the issue, and for five centuries their answer has been consistently the same. The doctrine of stare decisis compels, at the very least, respect for their decisions, if not complete adherence.

Okay, but what right does the U.S. have to hold prisoners on foreign soil so as the prevent them from seeking habeas corpus?